Mark Carney’s offer to stay did not sound like a desperate attempt to cling to office. In his big reveal to MPs on Tuesday, which came as no surprise to anybody after a week of this saga, he said he was willing to stay beyond June next year as governor of the Bank of England if that’s what the government wants.

Big gigs like the top job at the International Monetary Fund are not currently up for grabs, so there will be a strong suspicion that it suits Carney’s short-term interest to remain in Threadneedle Street. He has reputation for cute career planning, after all. At the outset in 2013, he negotiated a five-year deal instead of the eight that George Osborne had wanted, before agreeing a one-year extension after post-referendum lobbying by Philip Hammond.

But on this occasion it makes little sense to guess at Carney’s motives. He’s willing to stay and the real question is whether it suits the UK to keep him. Unless the chancellor has a whizzy alternative candidate up his sleeve (probably not), the answer should be: yes, stick with Carney.

First, he carries diplomatic clout. His regular warnings to the EU that the UK is the “banker for Europe”, and that it would suit nobody to upset the financial apple cart, have more force for being delivered by an obvious Brexit sceptic who is also head of the international Financial Stability Board.

Second, Carney’s departure is currently planned for next June, which suddenly looks to be rotten planning if a no-deal Brexit is on the cards. It is conceivable that the UK and EU could be engaged in a Greek-style episode of extended deadlines and ultimatums that lasts well beyond the intended exit date of 29 March. Why insert a new governor into a potential mess if you don’t have to?

Whatever he decides, Hammond should get on with it. The past week of uncertainty makes all parties look ridiculous. Extending Carney’s stay to mid-2020 would be the smart move.